Inquiry into the Pastoral Ministry of Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho)
October 3, 2015

The CREC began a process a couple of weeks ago aimed at addressing the legitimate questions and concerns regarding some of the past actions and practices of two cases of sexual abuse. We take these matters seriously and seek to address them fully. In keeping with the CREC Constitution and our regular church order, the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, has invited the presiding ministers of each presbytery to inquire into the pastoral care and counseling ministry of Christ Church, with particular regard to their handling of sexual abuse cases, not excluding the two cases that have been the subject of some recent controversy. In short, are their practices in this area operating within a biblical framework and consistent with the law? Are they operating competently and in good faith?

This invitation means that under the direction of their chair, the committee is invited to ask any questions of members of the Christ Church session and pastoral staff, and they can have complete access to their minutes, records, files, etc. Christ Church is asking this committee to issue a public report in the next few months. Moreover, they have requested that the presiding ministers satisfy themselves as to the health and soundness of their pastoral care in such circumstances, and to provide them with their counsel and advice where they see any deficiencies.

Pastor Douglas Wilson is the current Presiding Minister of the CREC Council, and he has recused himself in this matter. As the current Presiding Minister pro tempore of the CREC Council, I will assume the role of Presiding Minister of Council in these matters and will chair the committee of the seven presiding ministers of our presbyteries, which I have appointed to this review committee.

Randy Booth
Acting Presiding Minister, CREC Council

The first question that should come to anyone’s mind about this inquiry is who is Randy Booth? What qualifications does he have to do such an inquiry? How much knowledge does he have of CREC and what are his connections with CREC? Will the Committee feel free to honestly answer the questions without repercussions? At what point, if ever, would they seek outside, independent help? The most obvious question is, is there a conflict of interest with Randy Booth performing this inquiry? Is he an independent and unbiased person who can accurately and justly assess the situation?

The answer to the last questions is a resounding NO!

Pastor Booth has been an ordained minister for 27 years. He has been married to his wife Marinell for 37 years, and they have three grown and married children and eleven grandchildren. Pastor Booth holds a Bachelor of Science degree in history and psychology, and has completed graduate studies in philosophy and apologetics. He is the director of Covenant Media Foundation, and is the author of several published articles and books. Pastor Booth has been actively involved in the pro-life movement and has worked with both home schools and Christian day schools for more than twenty-five years.

Did you notice the part of the bio in which it mentions that Booth is the author of several articles and books? Well, blow me down, you’ll never guess with whom he authored a book: Douglas Wilson. Yup, Doug Wilson!

Conflict of Interest of Mammoth Proportions

Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church is a CREC church. Randy Booth is an insider at CREC. He is no outside, independent investigator AT ALL. In fact, he has co-authored a book with Douglas Wilson entitled, A Justice Primer (An excerpt of the book can be found here.), published by Canon Press (Doug Wilson’s gig). Do you see a conflict of interest here?

These two men have teamed up to write a book on how to handle cases just like the pedophile cases in which Wilson has found himself embroiled for the last several years. In writing this book, Randy and Doug are intimately connected with the content, they believe and endorse their interpretations and conclusions. These two men believe this book provides the answer to the cases that Wilson finds himself in today.

I believe that Wilson most likely has handled the pedophile cases just as he prescribes in his book. He staunchly defends how he has handled the cases, and somehow, by some weird coincidence, or as CREC folks might say, “Providence,” Randy Booth is now the person to look over the handling of these cases?

Un-freakin’-believable!

If God is just, and the Bible is his word, how is it that everyone is in such a fog when it comes to actually administrating justice? As a culture, we cry for mercy when we’re hurt, and lustily pound the gavel when tables turn. Civil tyrants regularly trot out the thumbscrews and red-hot pokers, but just as many petty gunslingers take pleasure in targeting whoever “the big guy” happens to be. Is that justice?

Randy Booth and Douglas Wilson bring their considerable pastoral experience to the question of scriptural standards for justice, and their observations — that almost nobody has a firm grasp of what justice is or how it functions — are sobering. This is because maintaining a strict definition of justice is essential for any community, great or small. In this much-needed exposition, Booth and Wilson unpack God’s requirements for witnesses, victims, due process, and the accused and accuser, and take to task some of our favorite injustices in churches and abroad: anonymous assertions, rattling off charges, double standards, and the ubiquitous Trial by Internet.

Notice the “trial by internet.” We’ve seen similar remarks, “internet mob, etc” coming from Wilson regarding the Wight/Sitler cases. In fact, there’s a whole chapter on “Trial by Internet” in the nearly 300-page book.

The ideas represented in The Justice Primer have been mentioned throughout Wilson’s blog for quite some time. In July of 2014, Wilson wrote a blog article, Social Justice, in which we read about his idea of justice. In it he claims that the world does not understand sexual sin the way Christians do:

Our establishment no longer knows what sex itself is supposed to be, and so cannot know what sexual justice is supposed to be. We therefore ought not to rely on their “wisdom” about sexual justice as it relates to children. They don’t have any wisdom.

The last thing in the world Christians should do is join in with any stampeding opinions about any of this from the secularists. They don’t know what sex is for, and they therefore don’t know what sexual justice is.

The article continues with other disturbing ideas, but ends with this announcement:

This post is going to be incorporated into a book on the principles of justice that I am working on with my friend, Randy Booth, hence the first person plural pronoun.

Those who believe themselves to be hep to my tricksy ways might have surmised that I orchestrated this entire recent flap about Steven Sitler because Randy Booth and I recently put out a book entitled A Justice Primer. But whether you are disposed to believe me or not, that was a total coincidence. In this book we address biblical principles for evaluating charges that are brought against someone, anyone. The book is, I believe, quite a necessary resource for good-hearted Christians everywhere — who regularly see defamatory information scrolling by in their Facebook feed. There is even a chapter entitled “Trial by Internet,” which concludes with this sage advice: “Never get into a braying contest with donkeys” (p. 160).

Even further back, in the article, Injustice and Empathy (May 2013), we see an example of Wilson-styled justice when it comes to defending a pastor who is being put on the hot seat about mishandled sex abuse cases in many of his churches. Wilson put his nose into the Sovereign Grace Ministries sex abuse scandal and responded to the open letter in support of Pastor C.J. Mahaney written by Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, and Justin Taylor in support. In this article, however, Doug Wilson speaks out of the other side of his mouth regarding civil authorities and ::::gasp:::: supports them. I guess when it comes to a pastor facing legal consequences, it’s okay for the civil authorities to be involved:

The issue is that we do not know what the just response is until after a fair and just trial. Just sentences do not fall out of the sky — they proceed from just trials. And in order to have a just trial, it must be managed and conducted by just men, men who hate bribes, men who have a backbone, men who know the law.

This clearly is a man who not only cannot make his mind up about whether the civil court system is fair and just or whether it is an evil entity against Christians. So, it is astounding to me that he could write A Justice Primer with his flip-flop diatribes. Wilson does not know what he’s talking about when it comes to our judicial system. We’ve seen him meddle with the judicial process in both Sitler and Wight case, and he thinks he is the authority on sex abuse cases in his church and how they should be appropriately handled. The current-day status of the two public sex abuse cases shows: the victim in the Wight case has publicly said Wilson and church leaders did not care for her appropriately; and in the Sitler case, it has been reported by Sitler that he was sexually stimulated when holding his infant son. These cases have NOT been handled well.

The bottom line is that Booth in no way, shape, or form will ever find fault with Wilson’s handling of these cases. As long as Wilson followed his own rules in their book (which I imagine will be the measuring tool Booth uses), Wilson will come out on top.

Douglas Wilson is a very weak man. It takes a man with honesty, integrity, and humility to hire an outside independent authority to do investigations. Wilson has failed his congregation and the Body of Christ by this ridiculous charade. This inquiry means nothing to an outsider. It will only appease the Koolaid drinkers on the inside.

Side note:

Take note that with the exception of Bahnsen, the rest of those who endorsed this book also have connections with Christian Reconstructionism, which makes sense because Wilson has frequently mentioned and preferred Old Testament methods of responding to specific sins; ie, stoning, woman must cry out when raped to validate it, etc.

48 thoughts on “Doug Wilson’s Christ Church and Handling of Sex Abuse Cases to be Investigated by Insider?”

This inquiry process is a joke. I’m sure that the Council will come back in a few weeks with some variation on the following:

“Not only is Douglas Wilson the godliest man in the known universe, but he also has the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, cure cancer, and end world hunger. His sh*t smells like roses and fresh cinnamon buns, his taste and class are impeccable, and my isn’t he handsome. Also, anyone who disagrees with him actually *IS* a ‘dyke’ or a ‘homo’ and will burn in hell for all eternity amen. We the Council do hereby permanently conclude these inquiry proceedings to be sealed from the public and never to be spoken of again, and we duly congratulate ourselves on a job well done.”

Well done once again, SSB!
For those who have skipped the post and are reading the comments, here is the short version.
Wilson does not know what he’s talking about when it comes to our judicial system. Booth, Wilson’s co-author on *justice*, is investigating Wilson’s unjust handing of two of sexual abuse cases.

If you are interested in covering your backside and protecting your reputation, call in your closest associates. If you are interested in doing right by victims of sexual predators, both past and future, call in Boz Tchividjian. But nope, won’t happen. Not unless and and until submission to a process with actual integrity is perceived by these braying donkeys to be their only hope for individual and organizational survival.

In the meantime, thank God for the Court of Public Opinion! Thank God that these self-absorbed promoters of themselves no longer get to set the rules of discourse in a manner that permits them to control the narrative! Thank God that these people’s victims have been given a public voice! Thank God for trial by Internet!

Julie Anne, you said, “This clearly is a man who not only cannot make his mind up about whether the civil court system is fair and just or whether it is an evil entity against Christians.”

The key is in the quote of Wilson’s that you posted: “And in order to have a just trial, it must be managed and conducted by just men, men who hate bribes, men who have a backbone, men who know the law.” As a Christian Reconstructionist, Wilson does not think that the current civil court system is able or up to the task of conducting fair trials – with perhaps the exception of those civil courts that happen to rule in a manner that agrees with him. However, when the courts do not abide by his rigid rules, they are to be disdained. Not all of them are Christians and those that are do not hold to his particular set of beliefs. Further, if you read that statement face value, it is misogynist to the core. Only MEN are up to the task of conducting fair trials. Hence, the current judicial system does not abide by Doug Wilson’s standards and cannot be trusted because women are judges and prosecutors in that system. Christian Reconstructionism in the vein of Rushdoony’s teachings, which Doug Wilson endorses, seeks to raze the current civil court system and re-establish it under the banner of postmillennialism. Of course, Doug is duplicitous in these matters because he is the judge of which courts are abiding by his standard of fair and which are not.

Furthermore, let’s see how much Doug Wilson actually recuses himself in this matter. My bet is that he’ll be posting on Blog and Mablog with a vengeance in his wordsmithy ambiguous way, all the while interjecting himself into the investigative process.

Again, DW’s true colors show up in the comment section of his blog post entitled, “This Ramshackle Heart.” A person named guester commented: “Everyone who reads Doug Wilson needs to ask if they are willing to have their own daughter treated as Natalie Greenfield was treated.” Doug Wilson responded: “Nobody in their right mind would want to have their daughter treated as Natalie says she was treated.” Guester wisely responds to DW: “The fact that you differentiate between “was treated” and “says she was treated” is a passive way of saying that Natalie is not telling the truth; that she is a liar. We see what you did there.

Doug Wilson continually reveals his lack of concern for the victim, Natalie Greenfield. By those few words, “says she was treated,” it is clear he believes Jamin over Natalie. He was snookered by the predatory rapist and wife abuser and still refuses to admit to it. What a proud man he is.

I am not sure how to view this. My general inclination is to say that this denomination has the right to use its internal mechanisms and procedures to address any internal issues with which it is confronted. The civil courts generally have followed this view and decline to get involved in matters such as doctrinal controversies in churches. Similarly, almost all outside groups would bring their own doctrinal/philosophical biases to the issues. (Hope that was not ‘legalese” JA, insert smiley)

On the other hand an outside group would have much more credibility. If the CREC want to be known for their integrity, it seems to me that this might be the route to take. I agree with Gary W. that GRACE might be the right choice. They seem to me to be a fair and principled organisation.

One of the links reports that Booth was involved with trying to influence a Reformed Baptist congregation and convert them to infant baptism. This is a pet peeve of mine. (Not infant baptism, but joining a church or organisation and then subverting it.)

Does anyone know what church Bahnsen attends? Would his name be “big” enough to lend the conclusions of an internal group credibility?

Darlene, Wilson wasn’t “snookered.” It’s much more sinister than that.

To Doug, what happened to Natalie *simply doesn’t matter*. Doug Wilson is angry that Wight and Sitler, two of his Patriarchal protégés, were caught and exposed for sex crimes. He’s still trying to turn the clock back and salvage these two perverts for patriarchal ministry. Natalie’s story is a perpetual inconvenience to Doug’s patriarchal agenda. Doug doesn’t give two sh*ts about Natalie or any of Wight or Sitler’s other victims. They’re all merely inconvenient collateral in the wake of Doug’s reconstructionist vision.

I hear what you’re saying Dash, but I’m not one to be able to peer into his heart and see his motives. I say snookered in that he believed Jamin to be repentant. Those are Wilson’s words on the matter. Whether DW is being honest about this particular issue, I can’t say because I’m not close enough to the actual case. However, the facts show that Jamin wasn’t repentant. Hence, according to what Wilson has testified, he was fooled by Jamin’s fake repentance. Should more facts come to the fore and more light be shone on Wilson’s motives, i.e., that he actually believed Jamin was unrepentant but didn’t care and wanted him to continue being a predatory rapist – I’ll gladly ascribe his motives in this particular matter as being wicked to the core. The facts of the Wight and Sitler cases are bad enough. He continues to refuse to admit his wrongdoing and believe himself to be persecuted. He is a classic narcissist and too incompetent to be a pastor.

WOW , from the tone of this article I would have thought CJ $$$ Mahaney , Mark I harbor scumbags Dever, John I didn’t finger those little girls Loftness, Dave I do whatever they will pay me to do HARVEY, Bob rock n roll wash out Kauflin, JD harass kids till they kill themselves HALL, and Nathaniel Morales (doing 40 years to life for raping little boys and unable to make it ) were on the investigative team looking into Wilson’s church.

OOPSY, might as well be……

Well on second thought I guess a David Gibbs style cover up / whitewash isn’t such a bad thing. I mean Doug Wilson is GOD’S ANOINTED, how dare anyone * question any of these anointed folks (like the squad of scumbums listed above). They are anointtttttttttttttED !!!!!!!!!!

* Especially women who should be cleaning their kitchen NOT on the net dealing with the sex crimes & cover ups of GOD’S ANOINTED SOVEREIGNTY. Matter of fact you women shouldn’t even be discussing sex at all, or ever thinking about it without your husband’s written permission (unless you are single and then you need your father or suitable guardian / chaperones permission).

Disclaimer: to anyone reading this that may be new here, yes I’m talking tongue in cheek. I do consider everyone named in this post to be a person of low integrity and borderline psychopath.

I’m not making that assessment based on “peering into Wilson’s heart.” I’m making it based on all of the evidence at hand- all of Wilson’s quotes and books and blog posts over the years in addition to his current statements. It’s all a matter of public record, there are no mysteries here. Wilson doesn’t care about victims because to him, they don’t matter. Only patriarchal males approved for ministry and/or authority by him and those like him are of any consequence, and that is an assessment consistent with everything Doug has ever said or is saying now.

A meeting together of pastors and “godly men” should in theory be able to take an honest look at themselves and see where they went wrong, where they need help and growth, and who needs to lose their seat at the table.

Should.

The problem here is that again we have churches mishandling sex abuse because they refuse to realize they are likely not qualified to deal with it. I doubt any of them really see sex abuse as something needing training (maybe even secular training, oh no!) to deal with, and that seems evident from their language. Unless these pastors come together and collectively realize this, there will be no meaningful changes.

No doubt these people are too proud to recognize their own ignorance. However, I think their fault likely is even more nefarious. I suggest that their internal “investigation” is a consciously planned charade, even a planned fraud. They have no interest in the truth. They are interested only in deflecting criticism, and they are perfectly willing to stage a pretense of an investigation. It is as though Richard Nixon had named G. Gordon Liddy, John Dean, John Mitchell, John Ehrlichman and company to investigate the cover-up of the Watergate burglary.

My basis for harboring such suspicions? Men who build ecclesiastical organizations do not engage in the pursuit of truth. They engage in self-promoting advocacy. It is all about the pursuit of prestige, power and pecuniary gain.

Were these pretend Presbyterians truly interested in truth, they would bring in a credible and competent outside organization. Even so, I would remain skeptical. Just as Richard Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, so also these people would most likely end up discharging any independent investigator whose conclusions were threatening to prove uncomfortable.

That’s likely true. They’ve already decided the parameters by which truth is discovered (men, pastors, looking after each other) so if we’re unsatisfied with whatever they decide or how they’ve been”investigated”, we’re just godless dissenters who don’t believe in Matthew 18.

Another thing that stands out is that this supposed investigation is all about themselves. Were THEIR actions Biblical? Were THEIR actions consistent with the law (as if they have any competence to determine that)? Were THEIR pastoral care and counseling ministry acceptable? In short, can they justify THEMSELVES?

Were this announced investigation legitimate, they would be focusing on how to render restitution to those they failed. They would be focusing on how they could still play a role in restoring heretofore abandoned victims to spiritual and emotional wholeness. It would be about those they wounded and are wounding, and that without any regard whatsoever to whether they can retroactively justify their actions.

Where the “investigation” is to be all about themselves, I have about as much hope for an acceptable outcome as I would have for a sociopathic narcissist who puts on a grand display of making himself accountable to his BFFs.

I’ve been reading around and it looks like this is their normal process when something like this occurs. The issue is that DW is like a pope, there is no one over him. Nobody is going to risk to speak out against him without being put on a list which will surely cost them.

Now, if it was ruled there was a problem, then what? Would they hire an outside source? I highly doubt it. Would DW get reprimanded? When I get time, I’ll try to locate the governance process (unless someone else posts it before me).

From the announcement: “Are they operating competently and in good faith?”

Hahahahahahaha! Oh, thanks for the laugh today. Sadly, I already have an idea of how this question will be answered.

As far as Doug Wilson’s recuse, I’m confident that he’ll find his way to get his voice heard.

This reminds me of a church that we once attended where we had a small group meeting in our home but one of the elders leading it. My husband sat on a committee to look at hiring a new pastor. The elder recused himself from sitting on that committee because he was interested in becoming the pastor. He then came to our house one night to talk about us transitioning to lead the small group, but instead spent two hours talking about how he would be the best person to become pastor of the church.

Guys like this who make it look like they’re doing the right thing always find a way to influence and make sure things go the way they want it to. There is absolutely nothing “independent” from Wilson about this inquiry.

Shades of Mars Hill… The press release sounds as if Wilson himself might have written it. Whether or not he did is a moot point, I guess.

The thing that struck me is that the investigation doesn’t seem to involve asking the members of the *flock* to grade the pastors’ and elders’ report cards. Plus, it looks like self-policing, and from what I recall, self-policing doesn’t have a great success rate.

“This invitation means that under the direction of their chair, the committee is invited to ask any questions of members of the Christ Church session and pastoral staff, and they can have complete access to their minutes, records, files, etc. Christ Church is asking this committee to issue a public report in the next few months. Moreover, they have requested that the presiding ministers satisfy themselves as to the health and soundness of their pastoral care in such circumstances, and to provide them with their counsel and advice where they see any deficiencies.”(emphasis added)

“The last thing in the world Christians should do is join in with any stampeding opinions about any of this from the secularists. They don’t know what sex is for, and they therefore don’t know what sexual justice is…”

This was written before this latest furore over Sitler and Wight. But it was after the “Conquer, colonize, plant” one. No wonder he cannot worry about anybody else’s opinions: We silly worldlings know nothing about sex, so how could we say anything about pedophiles, or sexual coercion in marriage?
Even worse, most of us are women. Women are totally unqualified to teach men anything on the topic of sexual abuse (sexual injustice). We know nothing about it unless a religious man – it has to be a man – teaches us the appropriate Bible verses.
[/sarcasm off]

For me the telling detail that Wilson wasn’t just snookered is that he wrote letters to the officials on behalf of both Wight and Sitler. And not just that he did so at all, but that he intervened when they were already pleading to a FRACTION of the crimes they had committed (in Sitler’s case a single count of lewd contact when he had confessed to Doug multiple child molestations, over a period of years, in two states, with children from at least two congregations).
.
If Wilson believed Wight and Sitler to be repentant, why didn’t he encourage them to accept the appropriate punishment for their sins, as would be the Biblical model for repentance?

I believe that Wilson’s advocacy for these men wasn’t about the gospel or repentance at all. Instead, it was about his distorted theology: that he had to restore these men to their appropriate patriarchal position, and that having been baptized, they were regenerated, no matter what they did to children, no matter the cost to Katie, Natalie, the unnamed victims or their families.

I listened to a preacher the other night, who talked about these evil pastors:

Jude 4, 12:

For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about[b] long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
[…]These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.

Pastor Doug Wilson feeds only himself. A classic example of an unfaithful shepherd, preying on the sheep.

JA, you noted that David Bahnsen doesn’t have a connection to reconstructionism. He is actually son of the late Greg Bahnsen, a reconstructionist theologian whose beliefs led to his dismissal from Reformed Theological Seminary. He wrote several books including “By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today” and “No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics.”

Mod note: Sarah – I changed your name to Sarah2 because we have a regular reader here by the name Sarah. If you’d like to change it to something else, please let me know 🙂 ~ja

Oops, I typed too soon! But now that I’ve read it, I see that he says his “departure from that world is primarily sociological and tactical,” and he says “I doubt that significant belief changes have taken place.” He also says “while legalism and phariseeism exist and need to be squashed, the underlying sin contaminating the church is one of utter rebellion – a refusal to see God as lawgiver and judge.” Elsewhere on his blog he says “So a man I really, really respect a great deal and have known for a long time wrote a spectacular piece here. His name is Gary DeMar, he is a thought leader in the Christian community . . .” (http://www.davidbahnsen.com/index.php/2012/08/09/christians-voting-for-mitt-romney-and-the-smackdown-of-those-opposed-to-it/)

He refers to Sandlin several times on his blog as a good friend, and he also recommends a book by George Grant. All of that to say that I think although he doesn’t officially claim the name “reconstructionist,” he still has a lot of it in his system.

PS – It’s interesting, because when I saw his last name, I immediately thought of his father, but because I don’t want to assume, I did a search on all of the names to see if they were still connected with Reconstructionism. That is when I came across his blog post. He looks to be a successful businessman and perhaps he realizes holding to that belief system is a hindrance to his business. Who knows?!

I spent a little time in reconstructionism. (I think I remember that you did too, Julie Ann?) It appealed to me because I wanted to believe that the Old Testament still had meaning and value to us today. Today I believe that the Old Testament is a record of people getting to know God little by little. I don’t believe that God ever wanted adulterers stoned, because Jesus didn’t want adulterers stoned. But that’s a whole “nother” topic! 🙂

Actually, we didn’t really get involved in Reconstructionism, although some of our homeschool curricula had it’s roots there, I later found out. We did actually go to a Reconstructionist church once. My Catholic roots liked the liturgical side of things, but there was something “off.” Sure enough, when we were about to leave (after eating at the potluck they have for all families after church), a couple of men loaned my husband the book, House Divided: The Break Up of Dispensational Theology (hey, I just realized it’s by Greg Bahnsem). That was one of the times I followed my gut and did massive research on Bahnsen and other names mentioned in the book, ie, Gary North. As soon as I saw Gary North’s name, I refused to go back to the church, period. That man caused so much fear/harm to people who were all in a frenzy about Y2K, while he profited monetarily. That is the extent of me dabbling in Reconstructionism. Interestingly, as I researched Randy Boone yesterday, I ran across the name of the pastor at that church, Dennis Tuuri, who has had his own scandalous past. That church is also connected with CREC. We dodged a bullet there, but then ended up in Chuck O’Neal’s cult.

Here is archive site on Doug Wilson. They are compiling all the court docs, blog articles, twitter comments re:DW, and the latest news on the man himself. Take a look. And if there are any articles or information on DW that is not on their site, send them an email and let them know.https://dougwilsonarchive.wordpress.com/

Thanks, Darlene. I added that site to my sidebar the other day and forgot to mention it. I also added The Truth about Moscow blog (http://moscowid.net/) which has a lot of primary source documents. Both sites are very informative.

Former Kirker here. This pedophile scandal has been known about for years by everyone in Moscow but it needs exposure everywhere. Your blog and a few others are helping to put the pressure where it’s needed. So thanks! “Folks this is messy stuff.” It sure is and it can only get messier. Are you sure you want to wade into this swamp? Time to put on the hip waders! Watch out for Randy booth. He’s never neutral and he can be mean as a snake. On this pedophile review thing you can bet everything has been prearranged with Wilson and Booth. “The fix is in” as they say.

“When Pastor Randy Booth learned that his son was dealing drugs, he took a self-imposed one-year LOA, as noted below. But as not noted below, Booth’s LOA lasted less than four months, and in less than a year he jumped ship to pastor another church, which immediately applied for membership in the CREC.”

I got this off the younger Bahnsen’s website:
“The idea that faith in Christ requires – yes, requires – life changing repentance and obedience has not been merely abandoned – it has been repudiated like a plague. Small churches, big churches, Reformed churches, and non-Reformed churches routinely ignore the gospel message of a faith defined by its obedient works. The gospel message has not been watered down; it has been abandoned. ”

A dear friend explained it to me in terms that *finally* made sense to me. This is the verbiage I’ve been struggling with for the past year: faith *requires* obedience. “Faith defined by obedient works…” isn’t quite so horrible and despair-causing.

What my friend said, that makes sense to me, that makes faith actually *doable* (working out our salvation, etc.) was: “Faith *enables* obedience. God’s grace, freely given, doesn’t require us to be obedient, rather, it inspires us towards obedience, in that we want to, not because we have to. And that results in an outward show of obedience, but, again, not because it’s this increasingly heavy burden that’s been laid upon us.

She said, it’s a little like a little toddler, trying to please the father, not because he has authority over her (what does she know from authority?), but because of the love between them. And he is smiling down at her faltering little steps, her clumsy fingers, her lisping words, because of the love between them.

I’m not articulating it as clearly as she did, but… hopefully it makes sense, and it’s not some sort of heresy. *sigh*

@Refugee, it is my belief that faith in Christ is the “life-changing repentance” that the younger Bahnsen mentions, but that it is not what he was referring to. What seems to be the problem (to me, at least) is that these types want all the theology without the kingdom of Christ itself. What I mean is, they want to be able to say “I know the truth” without actually having to obey the truth.

The same Christ who said “…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (Jn 8:32) also said “Blessed are the poor in Spirit…blessed are the meek…blessed are the peacemakers.” The truth does not stand in opposition to the beatitudes, it empowers them. We are set free from the trappings, curse and course of this world and become citizens in the Kingdom of God. THAT is freeing.